MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Land-use planning following resource extraction – lessons from grizzly bears at reclaimed and active open pit mines

2011· article· en· W2470518095 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMine closure · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationThreatened speciesWildlifeForbGrizzly BearsGeographyForageUngulateVegetation (pathology)HabitatEnvironmental sciencePopulationEcosystemEcologyGrasslandArchaeologyUrsus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gauging the success of industrial reclamation requires targets to be set for restoring ecosystem structure and function. An indication of reclamation success is if wildlife recolonise, forage, rest, reproduce and survive on reclaimed areas. The grizzly bear is a threatened species that exists at low densities in Alberta, Canada and facilitates a variety of ecosystem processes. To make suggestions for mitigating the effects of open pit mining on this species, we collected and analysed biological data for grizzly bears on and around Cheviot, Luscar and Gregg River coal mines in west-central Alberta. During 2008–2010, we captured and attached GPS radio collars on 12 adult bears on and around mines which allowed us to intensively track their movements. We visited bear-used GPS locations in the field to assess bear activity and microhabitat characteristics. Bears selected reclaimed mines and areas near mines extensively in late spring and early summer to forage on forbs sown as part of mine reclamation and to depredate ungulate calves and lambs. In the fall, bears moved primarily in areas outside mines to forage on berries in preparation for winter denning. Bears often bedded in dense tree cover which underlines the importance of maintaining original vegetation patches in planning mine operations. The animals sometimes crossed the major active mine haul road and moved on and near trails designated for human access on mine leases. High mortality risk associated with expansion of human access into previously remote areas is a major threat to long-term persistence of the grizzly bear population. Defensive driving and potentially enforcement of speed restrictions on mine haul roads in areas with high frequency of bear crossings, provisioning for ecological movement corridors and proper waste management practices will help prevent human-bear conflict during the active mining phase. Following closure of mines, access management along designated trails will reduce the risk of conflicts. Imposing access restrictions, along with preserving undisturbed habitat patches and restoring the original vegetation cover will enable coexistence of people and bears on a shared landscape.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it